The History Show on RTE this evening discussed the history of housing in Ireland, mainly Dublin.
Three academics - Frank Quinn (on his study of Georgian Dublin with Karl Deeter), Ruth McManus and Joseph Brady, who wrote a book on “Dublin, 1930–1950”. Neil Blaney is held responsible for Ballymun [because it proved a failure and he can’t defend himself. If it had been a success, everyone in Dublin Corpo would be claiming credit ]
Ruth Coppinger is interviewed on Oksana Boyko’s RT (formerly Russia Today) program this week. All the expected leftie shite from Coppinger, about how de wurkers should take ownership of corporations. Also how Apple’s billions in back tax should be spent on social housing. She touched a nerve when she mentioned income disparity in Russia, which caused the hyper-nationalist Boyko to leap to Russia’s defence, citing equal opportunities in sport as a counterexample . Funny that, as Boyko herself tweeted a ‘riveting [Russian only] interview on wealth inequality as inhibitor of economic growth in Russia’ just a fortnight ago.
Land of Hope & Homeless, Wednesday 21:35 RTÉ One RTÉ Investigates special documentary examines Ireland’s housing crisis,
how residential land is not being developed anywhere near the scale required and how the government is failing to deliver on its Rebuilding Ireland programme.
Developer Michael O’Flynn made a surprise appearance on RTE Radio The LateDebate on Thursday
Basically saying that house prices would remain high due to input costs controlled by the state: planning, vat, levies, regulations etc
It’s a fair point in terms of explaining cost, but the siren call of the right is to reduce those costs by reducing regulation. I’m not entirely sure what the costs of one-off housing levies have to do with large scale development (your link)?
The topic was input costs in housing in general.
Not specifically large scale or one-offs.
The example I posted was addressed to the general point of input costs, and their affect on the prices of houses.
I can not hear this siren call of the right that you are describing. When did you first notice you could hear it?
Hopefully this won’t sound like another siren call of the right, but…
IMHO, if the private sector can’t build homes at reasonable cost, and the state is intervening to build/fund property development on a large scale, then something is seriously out of kilter, since all public works mean taxes. (Giving with one hand in the short term, taking with the other in the long term.)
I agree with you entirely. But ZIRP means that housing costs are wildly out of kilter with production costs and production costs. The collapse of the major developers in the crash has resulted in a much smaller number of players (as well as a collapse in building where people actually want to live - the major urban areas where the jobs are), but, and there’s a big but, the failure of government (largely though bustness too) to build social housing has also resulted in a huge deficit in social housing.
Surely you agree that social housing should be the purview of government, whether national or local? Following the English example of selling off existing social housing stock exacerbates this situation. Shelter is a basic right and the governments (national and local) should provide both direct shelter provision and the means for private shelter provision. Cheap and plentiful housing is a good thing.
True in principle, but as you said they sold off their social housing stock.
(IMO for the sake of social cohesion and financial stability, the state should in the future be required to maintain a minimum fixed % of the total housing stock.)
Well, in most countries, construction is counted as consumption, buying and selling as investment (at least in the minds of the participants). So ZIRP has encouraged levereaged asset hoarding and rent seeking. Which really shouldn’t surprise economists, but once again they’re caught flat-footed, it appears.
That’s why I said: (at least in the minds of the participants). Look at it this way. I have x million to spend at ZIRP. I can buy a piece of land that will appreciate at y% with me sitting on me hole. Or I can buy a smaller piece of land and build something on it with all the work that involves and gain y-n%. At this point in time, construction is a cost (as snaps was sort of pointing out) with an uncertain return. Yes, it’ll add to the capital stock, but only after it is complete; it only turns a profit on the investment when it is sold, and it’s not clear there are buyers who can buy at a profitable price point, at least not the price point that outweighs sitting on your hold on an existing appreciating asset.
Hey, I think it’ll end in disaster too, but that’s how I see the participants behaving. I have even heard that mezzanine debt style development schemes (shareholders in development schemes with senior and junior debt ahead of you) are creeping back. You’d be mad not to apparently…